Personally I think it's a shame that in a sport that is primarily an engineering exercise, the drivers, over paid prima donna's that they are, get so much of the accolades.

Arguably the greatest men in F1 are the engineers and they deserve more recognition. Adrian Newey and Colin Chapman are the only one's who get any where near the status of drivers yet there are many more who have done far more to win races and championships than any driver.

For me Chapman was the greatest for consistently changing the sport with revolutionary ideas. Newey , with his genius for aerodynamics, has probably won more races than anyone. Byrne probably dominated F1 for the longest run.

There's not so much information around about the rest, I would be interested if people could shed light on them.

I nicked the list for the poll from F1 Fanatic but there may be more you know of. I would especially like to hear about engine designers who we hear so little about.

I don't feel I know enough about enough of them to vote. Colin Chapman was clearly a staggering innovator but I didn't realise (until seeing a couple of F1 documentaries, one of them was called 'the Killer Years') quite how obsessive, almost sociopathic, he was. Then again, engineers like Newey are renowned for pushing the envelope too - perhaps he would sacrifice structural integrity for outright speed, therefore putting his drivers at extra risk, just as Chapman did if the regulations allowed it.

Overpaid? Matter of opinion. Prima donna's? Sorry, but that's a stupid thing to say as far as I'm concerned. As for the poll, same as KnucklesAgain and Juggles, don't know enough about all of them to vote with any degree of certainty.

misconception again. He was not responsible for those previous things, either.

Repeating things is just waiting the forum's digital memory but, sadly, many members leave no choice: Chapman was never an engineer, or at least, that's what I was told in a documentary I previously watched about the Lotus of old

edit: Well, the documentary wasn't wrong though. He was a civil engineer, not an automotive expert one. Still no reason for him to be compared with Murray or Newey. If you wanna pick somebody from Lotus to compare with those guys, then put Peter Wright

unfortunatelly, his Ferraris didn't have much success, so I guess it would be quite hard for most to pick him

He's credited for having introduced some things(eventhough I don't have a clue if it was really him or the staff working with him as well ) in the sport like : semi-automatic gearbox, first carbon fibre composite chassis and 'coke-bottle' shape of sidepods. Still, he doesn't have that much success to kind of back it up. He "successed" at Mclaren in the 80's but his results at Ferrari really tarnished his resume a bit imo

edit: Well, the documentary wasn't wrong though. He was a civil engineer, not an automotive expert one. Still no reason for him to be compared with Murray or Newey. If you wanna pick somebody from Lotus to compare with those guys, then put Peter Wright

You're really deluded. Some diploma is worth more than conceiving the Lotus 25?

Gordon started much the same way as Colin BTW, building his own car to get the knack of it.

If F1 was not so focused on this aero rubbish, Adrian Newey's exposure would be greatly limited.

What an ignorant thing to say! Without aero downforce, F1 cars won't have their unique speed. F1 aero is one of the most tightly clamped one, stringent of freedoms. But the nature of the tracks mean that that is still the area that offers biggest gains and widest scope. Aero is what gives the car these speeds. May be if the races are all in Monaco and Singapore, aero scope would reduce. Newey is made for F1!

I should say! A great engineer revolutionizes the science. Before Barnard's introduction of carbon-fibre chassis any crash could mean a career's end at best. From then on, odds were a crash didn't even guarantee an automatic injury. Kind of changes the game, doesn't it?

What an ignorant thing to say! Without aero downforce, F1 cars won't have their unique speed. F1 aero is one of the most tightly clamped one, stringent of freedoms. But the nature of the tracks mean that that is still the area that offers biggest gains and widest scope. Aero is what gives the car these speeds. May be if the races are all in Monaco and Singapore, aero scope would reduce. Newey is made for F1!

F1 was infinitely more fascinating to watch when aero wasn't the freak show it is now.

And...what unique speed? Cornering speed?

Watching cars slide around corners because they aren't glued to the track is quite a test of skill.

I view Chapman as a visionary more than an engineer, a visionary whose compromises were so few they crossed into ethical grey areas. However, if safety wasn't a consideration of the circuits, other teams and the public at large, why should Colin have considered it? He was merely the most uncompromising of a generation that though leather caps were enough for a driver to consider his safety.

Newey is probably the greatest aerodynamicist in motorsport, but I picked Gordon Murray because he was as brilliant as Newey but with a harder engineering edge. Newey has always had great vehicle dynamicists around him, but Murray was the aero guy, the suspension... the complete auteur of his vehicles. Whatever the trends or new innovations in the sport, Murray's cars always had the most beautiful and neat iteration of them.

Newey is almost unfortunate to have been working in an era of F1 when computers and simulation have largely replaced or made redundant the visionary ideas that his forebears had... and yet we see on the Red Bull cars even now pieces of design that not only have Newey's personality stamped on them, they still challenge the rules and what people think is possible with F1 cars. I get the feeling that Adrian Newey would've liked to have been in F1 in Murray's 'heyday', and their brief crossover period showed the greatest of one era, and the first fruits of a new one in the MP4/4 and March 881.

And aside from the F1 cars... the McLaren F1 still may be one of the greatest cars ever concieved. Even Murray reckons it would still be faster than a Veyron if it had an extra gear... with nearly half the horsepower, 2 wheel drive and early 90's design and manufacturing technology.

Racing was more interesting when there was more danger involved. It added another dimension to the racing that made it quite interesting to watch.

We also had more proper circuits to race on in those days as opposed to circuits with car park runoffs. It's a shame we'll never see F1 at a circuit like the Osterreichring again.

I think danger is one thing but to be blatantly negligent is another thing all together. The sport was dangerous enough in those days without some of his designs which whilst brilliant at getting a laptime was not what you wanted to be in during an accident. This letter from Jochen Rindt http://chronocentric...id=31906;page=2 after this makes incredibly poignant reading when you consider that poor Jochen was doomed. I know Jackie Stewart would not race for Chapman and I read a post by Brian Redman in the Nostalgia forum where he said he was glad a deal for him to drive for Lotus fell though as he probably wouldn't have been around to make the post!

I'll agree that Chapman was the greatest innovator in the sports history though but I'll also have to acknowledge some of the other truths in this thread '2nd tier human', 'he would have ended up in prison' etc.

Anyway I'm not surprised Chapman and Newey are leading the poll. I voted for Newey.

F1 was infinitely more fascinating to watch when aero wasn't the freak show it is now.

And...what unique speed? Cornering speed?

Watching cars slide around corners because they aren't glued to the track is quite a test of skill.

You are clearly not following what I am saying. No matter how much you clamp aero, that is where most of the time is there to be found. You have to pretty much totally ban aero for that. The point I am making is the benefits of aero are such that even if it has the most stringent of freedom it still offers the biggest gains. It's the easiest way to go fast through the kind of corners that make F1 circuits.

Collin Chapman was never an engineer. Peter, and some other, were the responsibles for the ground effect cars's revolution

Plus, you are putting engineers of very different area into a comparison.

Newey is an aerodynamicist, Byrne know less about aerodynamics than some members in this forum, for instance.

In the end, you'll have things such as some passionate Ferrari fans claiming: "IMO, Rory Byrne is the greatest of all time. He made another legend looked pedestrian during the 1999 - 2004 period."

I am not a Ferrari fan, so that is the first misconception that you have.

Second misconception, this is not a discussion about the greatest F1 aerodynamicist of all time. It is a discussion about F1 designer/engineer. At Ferrari, Byrne was the "Chief Designer". He handled all design related matters, and aerodynamics is just a department, albeit a major one, within the whole design development team.

When in fact, Byrne had quite little to do with Ferrari's sucess. Many of it was down to Tombazis, Costa and others.

The same as in Chapman's case, Byrne just got the reputation for other's people work.

I would vote for Newey and Gordon Murray who really are aerodynamicists which belongs to a class of their owns.

This is a team sport. The whole team designs the car, but the key person, will invariably get the recognition. I know it is not fair. It is the same everywhere including with the Red Bull and Newey. Do you think Newey alone is reponsible for Red Bull being the WCC in the past 3 years?

I am not a Ferrari fan, so that is the first misconception that you have.

Second misconception, this is not a discussion about the greatest F1 aerodynamicist of all time. It is a discussion about F1 designer/engineer. At Ferrari, Byrne was the "Chief Designer". He handled all design related matters, and aerodynamics is just a department, albeit a major one, within the whole design development team.

This is a team sport. The whole team designs the car, but the key person, will invariably get the recognition. I know it is not fair. It is the same everywhere including with the Red Bull and Newey. Do you think Newey alone is reponsible for Red Bull being the WCC in the past 3 years?

Despite his misconceptions about the thread and your loyalties, there is some truth to what he says. True genii tend to be a little autistic in nature and and as such tend to be inconspicuous. Newey is a good example, a very mild mannered man, uncomfortable in front of the camera, it has taken a long time for him to reach the status that he has.

On the other hand, these people, by their nature, would probably never by able to pull a team together to make use of these abilities. This very often requires arrogant "2nd tier human beings" like Chapman, or even Ron Dennis (maybe Byrne too, I don't know much about him).

Personally I would very much be interested in the Peter Wrights of this world and they are part of my aim in this thread.

You are clearly not following what I am saying. No matter how much you clamp aero, that is where most of the time is there to be found. You have to pretty much totally ban aero for that. The point I am making is the benefits of aero are such that even if it has the most stringent of freedom it still offers the biggest gains. It's the easiest way to go fast through the kind of corners that make F1 circuits.

I don't dispute that it allows for the fastest way through corners.

What I dispute is the dominance of aero. It's turned F1 into a joke with these idiotic front wings, and everything else.

All the crying done regarding large budgets is laughable when the large budgets are all geared towards aero development; the refining aspect requires gobs of money.

It's not all that interesting. F1 has been relegated to a near spec race with this crap. I'd rather see more focus on mechanical grip and engine development than aero.

I think danger is one thing but to be blatantly negligent is another thing all together. The sport was dangerous enough in those days without some of his designs which whilst brilliant at getting a laptime was not what you wanted to be in during an accident. This letter from Jochen Rindt http://chronocentric...id=31906;page=2 after this makes incredibly poignant reading when you consider that poor Jochen was doomed. I know Jackie Stewart would not race for Chapman and I read a post by Brian Redman in the Nostalgia forum where he said he was glad a deal for him to drive for Lotus fell though as he probably wouldn't have been around to make the post!

I'll agree that Chapman was the greatest innovator in the sports history though but I'll also have to acknowledge some of the other truths in this thread '2nd tier human', 'he would have ended up in prison' etc.

Anyway I'm not surprised Chapman and Newey are leading the poll. I voted for Newey.

I have no problem with the advances of safety with car design. I'm not interested in seeing cars explode into fire.

But there is a balance to it all. Tracks should have enough danger designed into them so it gives drivers pause to consider risk/reward in choices on the track.

But calling Chapman a murderer/second-tier human is little over the top for my tastes. People are free to think it though, and I understand where they are coming from. I do agree he pushed the boundaries a more than necessary in his designs. His obsession with saving weight was understandable, but he took it too far in many cases. However, he was a product of another era who for all his greatness was flawed as a person. But that's what made Colin who he was.

Yes, I agree aero can be clamped much more than it is presently. But that would only increase the importance of aero. And I think that is how it should be. It still won't be as spoiled as it is now. The more stringent you make aero, bigger the difference an aerodynamicist like Newey would make. It is precisely because it still offers the biggest gains and that is where the most time would be found. It does not mean aero would be as interfering as it is today, as I believe it could be used much better. But F1 would always be an aero sport.

Yes, I agree aero can be clamped much more than it is presently. But that would only increase the importance of aero. And I think that is how it should be. It still won't be as spoiled as it is now. The more stringent you make aero, bigger the difference an aerodynamicist like Newey would make. It is precisely because it still offers the biggest gains and that is where the most time would be found. It does not mean aero would be as interfering as it is today, as I believe it could be used much better. But F1 would always be an aero sport.

Indeed, once you get over 70 mph the aero forces become massive, there is no way round that, so I think aero will always be the dominating factor.